boobookittyfuk wrote:they probably sent the tobacco in for testing so that they could not overdo it with the nicotine levels. I bet they also sent in their beer for testing afterwords too.
They probably did, yes. We were told that there was not enough nicotine in the beer to give you a buzz, and there wasn't. Enough alcohol, though... I'd smoke the tobacco instead.
Regarding tobacco-smoking malt: Wouldn't the malt probably end up smelling rather foul, like you usually do after a night of fat cigars? The smoke tastes and smells great while you're actually smoking it, but your clothes end up reeking like nothing I'd ever let near my beer. Would the effect on malt be dramatically different? When malt was dried in the days before coke-fired kilns, maltsters would list different fuels as producing different tastes in the malt, fern-dried malt for instance being a low quality malt, straw considered a bit better, and so on. I have a feeling tobacco-smoked malt might rank at the lower end of the scale.
